truefusion

As a word of advice, don't seek full detachment (from reality), it's not a healthy state of mind. You may question what reality or existence is, but in the end it is undeniable, therefore establishing truth.

Only if i deny all existence except myself can i say that. But that is to take on an extreme form of idealism, which has shown itself to be fallacious. If we follow from what i have just finished answering, the reason why you are still not yet free is because you cannot avoid yourself, that is, if everything is merely a thought (idea). If we consider that everything is merely a figment of our own thoughts (ideas), then you are merely a burden onto yourself. However, there is a dilemma when faced with a purely idealistic world: you can not control the "thoughts" (i.e. the objects) around you merely through thought itself, and that these thoughts that were there for you to observe you did not "think up"—they just were. Secondly, if you wanted to make something out of thin air, it is not possible. So, in the end, one is forced to accept a reality, though still perceived by our mind, that exists beyond our own thoughts. It may also be the case that you are not the one doing the thinking for yourself. But to mention something about obtaining knowledge and understanding: to me, the first step to these things is ignorance with the desire to want knowledge and understanding. It is said that the truth will set you free. But you have to ask yourself, "Set me free from what?"

For me it is to be separated from annoyances and worries, and be satisfied (or content) with that. But from my experiences, i have learned that to have things go entirely my way is non-sense.

I would be interested in seeing what you have done in InkScape. I would also be interested on your system's specifications. In fact, if you could provide the SVG files that crashed InkScape and the version of InkScape you were using at the time, i would like to attempt to crash InkScape using those works.

In your previous response, you disagreed with my definition for "ideal" because you found it to be incomplete and you attempted to give an example on why my definition was incomplete. Then you said that course of action wasn't for gaining understanding or to correct any of our statements, and that we should continue for the sake of understanding. But in order to continue, you realized that in order to understand, we would have to start defining the definitions themselves. But to avoid writing out our own dictionaries, you suggested we try to go for things that even little children could understand if it were to come to that. From there you decided to take conflict. This implied to me that you were going to redefine the word. But as you continued it started turning out that such may not be the case, since you alluded to the definition i provided for the word "conflict." However, you then noted that when you look at yourself or thoughts you do not always see opposition, though your thoughts were, nevertheless, in conflict. This i found interesting, so i tried to understand, i tried to apply that to my definition for "conflict" since you implied that you accepted my definition enough to use it as a starting point. But i could not understand, since there wasn't enough information for me to formulate a new definition for "conflict." So i informed you that i could not derive such definition from your statement, and questioned on how i were to do so. And since i was not able to derive a new definition, i felt like i was not supposed to consider what was said previous to that. Perhaps i was supposed to go with my feeling there when you asked me if you could extend "ideal," but at the same time i also felt that your request (question) was separate enough from what was previously mentioned, at least concerning "conflict." So i continued reading, and saw that you mentioned "at its lowest level." This signaled that i should be considering how a little child would perceive this. Having been amazed by the intellects of children plenty of times, i could not assume a child without first giving them a mind that could understand something like the basics of math. So with that, i allowed for the fact that the child could understand what an "image" or "idea" or "thought" would be (since they are really just the same thing). But then you mentioned that not only are your thoughts conflicted but so are your ideals. Assuming the same child, you should be able to see why the child would be confused, because you have then separated thoughts from ideals. I said what i said then to get you to formulate a new definition for "ideals." Then you asked me what i thought about "this" and if i had experienced similar "conflict." At this point, i was more confused for more than one reason. First you included "conflict" in that final question. But since i was unable to formulate a new definition, and since i felt that you were using a definition for conflict that expresses what you said about "conflict," i was at a loss. If i assumed my definition, we would end up right back to your point, where conflict does not always imply opposition. But i tried anyway to apply something to "this." "'This' what?" i said to myself. "'This' is what you said about your thoughts and ideals being conflicted?" "'This' concerning your take on 'conflict'?" I couldn't go any further up your statement, for i felt that was irrelevant to "this." But with what i was left with, i could not respond to, for they were about your experiences. How can i deny what you have experienced? So i responded that i could not answer you. And now we are here. I don't see myself as resisting, so i cannot answer the question. I would not be posting if i had no interest in it. Please excuse my grouping of these two questions if you did not intend for them to be grouped; i feel it is easier to respond to each if they are together. Though this response may displease you, i cannot refrain from engaging these things, that are conceptual in nature and are of the mind itself, with a theoretical or intellectual front if i am to engage this "personally"—that is, in the way i would do so. But you also mentioned that i was not supposed to bring in anything personal, like associations, memories, opinions, et cetera—which i did not know you wanted (even if you feel you have pointed it out to me plenty of times). Apparently, i do not know how to address things openly. If you want, i'll just accept everything you say from now on, regardless of what it may imply, even if it brings down the discussion from constantly hearing from me, "Yes, that is true; you are correct." Confused is what i am, not insulted.

If that were the case, i would be responding to you in every topic you post in. You just so happened to post in a topic that it could be expected from me to keep an eye on. This i don't see as a problem, since this applies to anyone suggesting a definition. Meaning even the term "religion" is futile to bring up even for Christianity and religions with their own rules and gods (or without gods), which in turn means there's no such thing as a "religion." An Atheist converting into a Christian and vice versa. In other cases, they could just tell each other in the simplest terms what their stance is and run off of that. I'm always being told (though i don't have to be, since i understand it) the "I go one God further than you" statement. (Note, i excluded the remainder of your argument because of the quote above this one.)

My definition for "ideal" included subjective praise (though it may be impossible to find objective praise from humans). To top it off, i made sure that the definition i gave it also encompasses statements like, "This is ideal!" For all the words i tried to give statements that were all encompassing, that is, that would fit in whatever context the words would be used in. For that reason, the Hitler scenario corresponds to the definition i gave. I feel that may not be possible if it were to come to the point where the definitions of the words need to be defined (though, technically, we are somewhat already at that point), and that to continue on using these words would only repeat what has already been mentioned. I am unable to determine the lowest common definition for "conflict" that you would give it, from your statement. Or was i not to follow from your previous paragraph? Or do you prefer that i assume the definition from your observations that were declared in your previous posts (since you started your statement off from what you observe in yourself)? I get the feeling that i was not to follow from the previous paragraph, even though you decided to take conflict. One of the reasons why i had trouble defining "pain" was because certain words implied the other, therefore forming circular reasoning. "Thought," "image," "concept," and "idea" imply each other. You show this fact not only in the parentheses of your definition for "ideal" but also in the "extended" definition for it. For that reason, "thought" is already included, therefore the definition for ideal need not be extended. Nevertheless, since these words imply each other, if by your definition "ideal" means those words, then that is like using the word in its own definition. I am unsure what to apply "this" to. So i am unable to answer your question(s).

In that sense, one can say that religion itself would not be considered a strong belief too, for one need not believe in a rule in order to follow or obey it. Nevertheless, the definition emphasized by rayzoredge did not include "strong" but "a set of," which means there are other senses to consider. But if an atheist has one belief that differs from another atheist, that is not a problem. Just do what people have done with other religions: place them in sects or denominations. The easiest to separate, however, i would say is Buddhism, or at least what first comes to mind.

Receiving opposition. Suggesting truth or falsehood. Belief in accomplishment. An idea placed in high status. I am unable to provide a definition for pain, because i am unable to provide a definition that would distinguish it from every other feeling. However, for those that i have provided a definition for, in order to provide the best response, i would also have to define "opposition," "truth," "falsehood," "accomplishment," "idea" and perhaps "status." You can attempt to start again. But define honesty. Reformation here is to exclude. Merely asking, "What is [this]?" is enough. Anything following it can contain any bias, implications—what have you.

There is no definite time when it decides to update. It could take from a few minutes to over 24 hours. This is done to reduce load on the server. To provide an analogy, you are placed "in line" till your turn is up.

I feel that you are attempting to challenge more than just whether one can only respond subjectively. That is, i receive the impression that you are attempting to challenge what is written in the First and Last Freedom. (In case you are wondering why i get that impression, keep reading.) But is it possible to acknowledge the significance of something you have never perceived through the senses? For that reason, even if your questions were not regarding the contents of ideals, an example need be given anyway to illustrate significance—that is, a form of reference. Actually, i was hoping to put it in another way, but that was unfortunately the only way i could think of. The reason being that such a question is significantly prone to error, that is, when attempting to answer it. I foresaw how you perceived conflict, hence my response. If you feel i have confused what conflict could be, then i have merely made your choices larger. That is, it is no longer restricted to what you have observed. Indeed, conflict is both desired and not desired. It is usually not desired when it is observable outside of one's self. But, of course, other forms of conflict are desired. To give an example, if you would consider a formal debate on whatever the matter. Or perhaps better put, a position that consists of competition. Who doesn't mind boasting every now and then? Again, having understood what you perceive as conflict, i bring up again that conflict can actually be desired, if it wasn't already. Interestingly, you imply a position i previously brought up: competition. You do so by mentioning "loss and pain." Pain is disliked because it is often a disturbing feeling, regardless of whether or not it is beneficial to the being. Nevertheless, there are people out there who actually enjoy receiving pain. I am uncertain at the moment. That would not be the bringer of conflict. Anything that is in opposition of it would be what causes conflict. I say this not because i happen to be a believer in Christ, but because conflict, as you define it, cannot exist if there is nothing in opposition. Even if i were to include the remainder of your statement, it would still follow that such a belief does not cause conflict, for it came and acted first. The conflict would come from the person that acts in accordance to what was brought to them by the believer in Christ. Indeed, there is no conflict if there is no opposition. Interesting way of putting it. However, how can you say that your questions have implications and then say it is merely an idea in my head? To say that they bear implications is to bear the same idea in your head. And why talk about Krishnamurti in a way that gives significance to whoever that is, when that just emphasizes the implications you say are merely an idea of mine? But in so giving Krishnamurti's writings significance, doesn't that answer your question concerning how they contradict your questions? If truth cannot be gained or sought out, why attempt to seek it? If his (assuming it's a he) writings are truth, then would you have not already found truth or at least some form of it? How then can Krishnamurti's words be true, that one cannot gain or seek out truth, if they have so done so? Or shall we suggest that truth is itself an idea, that there is no such thing except how one wishes for it to be? That is, to take up the position of epistemological nihilism. For this reason is why i mentioned earlier that i got the impression that you are trying to challenge more than what you said you were.

If you're trying to convince me, then that's work in vain. Not because i can't be convinced, but that even if i wanted to split "Java Script" from the forum's name, i'm not an administrator. Moderators do not have the ability to modify the properties of forums; we are limited to topics and posts. But this topic has been brought up in the past. Technically, all the reasons you have provided are irrelevant due to the Java* forum's naming convention. That is, as mentioned before, they are grouped together merely because of how the beginning of the words are spelled, not because they are of the same family. And even if such naming conventions may spark confusion, anyone who knows about Java and JavaScript can tell the difference between the two anyway. And chances are you won't even need the the name of the forum to start confusion: you can rely on just the name of the languages themselves for that.

"Success" is generally a relative term; likewise, its importance is generally relative. For that reason, though your question may seek an objective answer, it is bound to receive a subjective one. But i will say, concerning the last part of the question, that success is "important" because it often follows with a desirable implication—because it sounds like something nice to have, but not necessarily because it is nice to have. This question implies that there is already a definition for the word "success" and that it is subjective to the religion or "belief structure." The question also seems to be forcing a belief through implication that all "belief structures and ideologies" are practically the same. While that may be true for many, it is not true for all. "Success" may or may not exist in the religion. In fact, "success" is generally limited to this world, therefore being irrelevant for those that worry about the hereafter, therefore not existing in the religion or "belief structure." But in an attempt to answer the question anyway, trial and error could be the reason why. Many times is it because one copied the idea from the other and tried to add to it. You see this in the business world many times. They tend to call this an "education" or "experience." For that reason, it need not be limited to "belief structures or ideologies." Time is a measurement of length between one point to another. Time came from observing the sun and the moon. Since then, many theories has popped up concerning time. The question is similar to asking, "Why do humans do what they do?" but perhaps with some exception to prophecies. Logic actually plays a role in many of these things. Logic, here, can be guided by faith or vice versa. For example, "How do i go about in doing or achieving something?" Or, "If something could not always exist, then how did it come into existence?" Or, "What do i do next?" For that reason, it need not be limited to "belief structures and ideologies"—as it is common in practically every field you look in. Conflict is not necessarily disliked. By asking "why is it disliked?" you already assume a definition for the word, therefore somewhat making the first part of your question irrelevant. For that reason, you are limiting what could or would be the answer to the first part of your question. But why something is disliked may depend on the person, whether it be concerning "conflict" or not. Again, your question implies a definition for conflict, for it assumes what the answer to the previous question would be. Indeed, you have provided many examples on what you would call or consider to be "conflict" when that may not be true necessarily. For this reason, the question itself is slightly closed a bit, that is, narrow. For that reason, i see little reason in answering the question. Nevertheless, it is not any belief, but certain beliefs, that is, not all beliefs lead to what you perceive as "conflict." I haven't read the entire thing, but from what i did read, your questions contradict what is written. Though i found a few problems with what i did read, i find referencing the First and Last Freedom slightly inconsistent with your questions. From what i did read, it mentions that finding truths cannot involve personal bias or prejudice when you search for it. However, as we have so seen, your questions are quite limiting to a narrow point of view.

You have just answered your own question. They are not grouped together because they are of the same family; they are grouped together because they all start with the letters "Java." Actually, AJAX is part of JavaScript, not the other way around. Regardless, a better approach would be to make a forum called "Client-side Languages" and use that for (X)(HT)ML, CSS, JavaScript and what-have-you, not to fully give JavaScript its own forum. But that would require some forum maintenance, that is, looking through the Java* forum for all JavaScript related topics and moving them to the new forum: something i see as a bit unnecessary due to the fact that JavaScript is part of the Java* forum because it starts with "Java."

Report the topics to us and we'll modify the content therein.

I think this question may be answered by the following topic: Link. If that is not what you meant, then i have misunderstood.

Ubuntu would be a good choice if your Mac had an Intel processor inside. Ubuntu stopped building for the PPC architecture, so unless you have a Mac with an Intel chip inside, or unless you find an older version of Ubuntu when it did support PPC, i would say Ubuntu may be out of the question. I'm not sure if you mind maintaining the system yourself or not, but Gentoo, being a source-based distribution, requires you to be aware of the changes to your system. Back when i was using Gentoo i learned a lot about how Linux works, how to configure the system, and whatnot. But after a while the maintenance started getting in the way of my productivity, so i switched back to Ubuntu. I don't own a Mac, so i don't know of many distributions that run on a Mac, but if your Mac has an Intel chip, then you'd have a larger array to choose from. The popular boot-loaders are GRUB and LILO. You are likely to see these for most distributions. They're sure to work on a Mac, since they are open source boot loaders. In that case, why not just get another HDD (even if it's an external) and use that one for Linux instead?

Many extraverts appear introverted when alone or quite thoughtful and other reasons. By your description, you're not an introvert. In social gatherings, an introvert is most likely to stick close to and interact with those they know, though possibly not taking any initiatives with their friends; they are unlikely to stand out or take any initiatives with those they don't know. An extravert would interact with even those they don't know. But this is not to say that, when motivated, an introvert won't start extraverting. But with an introvert you are most likely competing with their inner world when motivating them to extravert. So the best way to get their attention is to bring up topics that they're interested in. Normally the extravert is the one that asks those kinds of questions, like "What do you like to do?" or "What kind of things are you interested in?" This is, of course, due to the fact that an extravert often likes to compare their thoughts with the thoughts of others—even if they don't agree with the other person's thoughts.

You won't be able to without some content-aware engine, that is, if you're working with dynamic content. Using JavaScript won't be the best approach, then. You're better off with a content management system that marks the menu item based on what page your on and then see if something like what sonesay mentioned is within the source code of the HTML that was generated. However, although the link that jlhaslip posted could work with dynamic content, it is better suited for static content. So if you're working with static content, i would suggest that approach instead.

Cheerful colors are normally bright, but i wouldn't know if you'd call these cheerful colors. Nevertheless, this is what i came up with based on what was described.

That implies Xisto - Web Hosting, not Xisto. If Xisto - Web Hosting, then you have posted in the wrong section and gave the impression that it was Xisto's support team. If you have been using Xisto - Support for Xisto - Web Hosting related queries, that would explain why it took longer than usual to respond.

Here, i added in everything and fixed any bugs i caused. Had to move a few things around and add a few things. I've also switched from using the non-existing "subject" attribute to the standards compliant "title" attribute. I also increased the time it takes to move onto the next one, so people can actually read what it says. I'll let you worry about the look and feel of the whole thing. Enjoy.Note: If you want to see the difference, get a diff program. <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/; xml:lang="en" lang="en"><head><title>untitled</title><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" /><style type="text/css">#dropcontentsubject{width: 250px;font-weight: bold;}.dropcontent{width: 250px;height: 200px;border: 1px solid black;background-color: #DFDFFF;padding: 3px;display:block;}</style><script type="text/javascript">/************************************************ ProHTML Ticker script- © Dynamic Drive (dynamicdrive.com;* This notice must stay intact for use* Visit [url="http://www.dynamicdrive.com/; for full source code***********************************************/var tickspeed = 6000 //ticker speed in miliseconds (2000=2 seconds)var enablesubject = 1 //enable scroller subject? Set to 0 to hidevar timeoutif (document.getElementById){ document.write('<style type="text/css">\n') document.write('.dropcontent{display:none;}\n') document.write('</style>\n')}var selectedDiv=0var totalDivs=0function contractall(){ var inc = 0 while (document.getElementById("dropmsg"+inc)) { document.getElementById("dropmsg"+inc).style.display = "none" inc++ }}function expandone(){ selectedDiv = (selectedDiv < totalDivs-1) ? selectedDiv+1 : 0 var selectedDivObj = document.getElementById("dropmsg"+selectedDiv) contractall() document.getElementById("dropcontentsubject").innerHTML = selectedDivObj.getAttribute("title") selectedDivObj.style.display = "block" timeout = setTimeout("expandone()", tickspeed)}function expandone2(){ contractall() selectedDiv = (selectedDiv-1 > -1) ? selectedDiv-1 : totalDivs-1 var selectedDivObj = document.getElementById("dropmsg"+selectedDiv) document.getElementById("dropcontentsubject").innerHTML = selectedDivObj.getAttribute("title") selectedDivObj.style.display = "block" timeout = setTimeout("expandone()", tickspeed)}function startscroller(){ while (document.getElementById("dropmsg"+totalDivs) != null) totalDivs++ expandone() if (!enablesubject) document.getElementById("dropcontentsubject").style.display = "none"}function doNext(){ clearTimeout(timeout) expandone()}function doPrev(){ clearTimeout(timeout) expandone2()}if (window.addEventListener) window.addEventListener("load", startscroller, false)else if (window.attachEvent) window.attachEvent("onload", startscroller)</script></head><body><div id="dropcontentsubject"></div><div id="dropmsg0" class="dropcontent" title="Content1">Content 1, this will appear first, 0 seconds after the page's loading.</div><div id="dropmsg1" class="dropcontent" title="Content2">Content 2, this will appear in the place of content 1, 2 seconds after the page's loading.</div><div id="dropmsg2" class="dropcontent" title="Content3">This is block number 3, the third content that will show you after 4 seconds of the page's loading.</div><div><button onclick="doPrev();">Prev</button><button onclick="doNext();">Next</button></div></body></html>[/html]

I've managed to somewhat duplicate the issue on my Linux machine, getting the same error code you quoted. However, after accepting the certificate a couple of times (literally just two times: one upon visiting the Gmail site and i think the other upon signing in), it fixed itself up. All the images became viewable and i was able to view the standard view (mode) in Gmail with no problem. This was using Firefox 3.0.10 (which is the current version at the time of this writing). So you may have a setting somewhere that is deleting your certificates upon closing Firefox. Or does it happen every single time you visit these sites regardless of closing Firefox? I get the impression that this wasn't necessarily caused by an upgrade installation and that you've had Firefox 3.0.10 for a while. Or perhaps you're using Firefox 2. Either way, i couldn't fully duplicate your problem, so it appears specific to your set-up.

Originally i was going to make this rely on MySQL for its content storage, but i decided to put that one aside and just go with flat-files. This CMS doesn't necessarily do everything you'd expect from an average CMS. That is, it doesn't manage the files for you, like creating, editing, deleting, et cetera. It follows a set of guidelines set up by the user ("administrator") and organizes and displays content according to those guidelines. I don't plan on making an admin control panel for this CMS even though it is fully possible to make one for it. The settings for it are all set within index.php—or whatever other file you specify (though index.php has higher priority). This CMS for its URL generation goes with a simpler form for the URLs, which is said to be search engine friendly. You can preview the default set-up here: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ Since i don't consider its current state to be a "version 1" program, i did not release an archive containing all the files. So if you want to obtain a copy of it, you'll have to check it out of the SVN repository: CONSOLE svn checkout http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ tfcms-checkout This will create a folder named "tfcms-checkout" in the current directory that you were in at the time of running the command. This requires subversion to be installed on the system.

The advertisements that appear are by companies that have made a deal with Kontera. Kontera is like Google adsense, but it generates the links from words on the website. It does not reserve a spot on the side or within the content like Google adsense. Due to how many members have already signed up to Kontera through Xisto, the possibility of your ads being picked for the topic being viewed are reduced. Therefore in order to generate more revenue, it is best to have another (popular) website for the Kontera ads to be present in. Even though there are ways to cause your Kontera ads to be picked above others, even those ways have a low chance anyway of having your ads being picked. Since Xisto, that is, OpaQue has already inserted the Kontera (i'm assuming) plug-in for the forums, you do not have to worry about inserting it for the forums. You just need to insert your Kontera ID in your forum controls. However, for your own site you would have to insert the JavaScript code Kontera provides you with.